If we are introducing trustees then this is no longer decentralized exchange.
If we are introducing trustees then this is no longer decentralized exchange.
Have the same feeling like you...
Can we discuss the latest change suggested by bytemaster?
Is there a whitepaper or more detail on how this would work? Given that this is added in the last minute, I'd like to discuss and make sure there are no attack vectors.
If we are introducing trustees then this is no longer decentralized exchange. I've been mulling over a similar idea where trustees would have to deposit BTC sort of like a license/insurance, that they will not mess with the network, but get commissions off of the transactions, if they get caught not doing the right thing - they get booted and the BTC goes to reimburse affected parties.
In any case - I'd like to see a diagram of how the ecosystem works.
If we are introducing trustees then this is no longer decentralized exchange.
Have the same feeling like you...
It depends upon the definition of decentralized. The power is decentralized. The ability of the exchange to be 'shutdown' can still be near impossible with a properly designed trustee system. It is kind of like decentralization through separation of powers rather than decentralization through all nodes doing the same thing. It still retains the following properties:
Your balance cannot be changed and your funds cannot be stolen by the trustee.
It still has all the other properties of bitcoin, except faster.
The transaction record is immutable even by the trustee (not even Bitcoin has this).
Compare this to a centralized exchange and it is night and day.
I know I'm cross posting but this is an important topic IMO
I don't think centralization is a good idea.
The cryptocurrency grave yard is littered with centralized schemes. Make no mistake that there is enough pressure already IMO on I3 to be indicted for securities violations, whether that is the case will be up to a court to decide. You have taken steps to stop the regulators from stopping your work, but they can arrest you and accuse you at any time. They know they have a better than 80% chance to get a conviction at trial, just because of the psychology of an authority saying you did something wrong. I can deal with that element of centralization, but just barely.
I think that any trustee that reveals their identity and lives in a country with strong financial regulations, such as the US, will go to jail for operating with out a license, selling securities with out a license, conspiracy to commit security fraud, money transmission without a licence, running a money services business without a license, the litany of charges will go on forever in some cases.
This will basically only leave trustees in countries where regulations are lax to operate the trustee scheme. This type of system will ensure that wall street and most of main street will not participate. This is bad for my and others' investment in PTS,AGS, and BTS. I will not participate in such a scheme, I believe the only reason that Bitcoin is any different than any prior is because of the blockchain decentralization invention. You are literally taking the greatest invention of the century and throwing it out the window for centralized control. Make no mistake you are taking a step backward.
If you are serious about this thing you have created, you would spend the time to do it right. Satoshi took years crafting his system, you can't take a few extra months?
I know I'm cross posting but this is an important topic IMO
I don't think centralization is a good idea.
The cryptocurrency grave yard is littered with centralized schemes. Make no mistake that there is enough pressure already IMO on I3 to be indicted for securities violations, whether that is the case will be up to a court to decide. You have taken steps to stop the regulators from stopping your work, but they can arrest you and accuse you at any time. They know they have a better than 80% chance to get a conviction at trial, just because of the psychology of an authority saying you did something wrong. I can deal with that element of centralization, but just barely.
I think that any trustee that reveals their identity and lives in a country with strong financial regulations, such as the US, will go to jail for operating with out a license, selling securities with out a license, conspiracy to commit security fraud, money transmission without a licence, running a money services business without a license, the litany of charges will go on forever in some cases.
This will basically only leave trustees in countries where regulations are lax to operate the trustee scheme. This type of system will ensure that wall street and most of main street will not participate. This is bad for my and others' investment in PTS,AGS, and BTS. I will not participate in such a scheme, I believe the only reason that Bitcoin is any different than any prior is because of the blockchain decentralization invention. You are literally taking the greatest invention of the century and throwing it out the window for centralized control. Make no mistake you are taking a step backward.
If you are serious about this thing you have created, you would spend the time to do it right. Satoshi took years crafting his system, you can't take a few extra months?
How much for your PTS, AGS and BTS? I think BM mentioned that the trustee can operate through tor. If no one wants to be a trustee I volunteer, even though I live in the United States. We don't really know if Satoshi took years crafting his system. Bitcoin was released in 2009 after the 2008 nonsense that happened. Maybe he only took a year to develop Bitcoin which was only possible because the enabling factors were in place, research by other people looking create such a system who perhaps didn't because they were too timid. Fortune favors the bold.
The greats of history sometimes committed treason of the highest order such as the founders of America for the betterment of mankind. The founders of the United States turned against the most power empire at the time, they didn't ask for permission from the British. Same dynamic is at play right now. We don't need to ask for permission to do what we are doing.
Anyways, the IRS has said that it views Bitcoin as property and will be taxed as such. How many people do you think will actually file their Bitcoin earnings? I sure didn't and I'm sure the majority of people won't either. The lack of regulation or licenses sure didn't stop people form accepting and purchasing Bitcoin. I think the same think will happen here with Bitshares.
I know I'm cross posting but this is an important topic IMO
I don't think centralization is a good idea.
The cryptocurrency grave yard is littered with centralized schemes. Make no mistake that there is enough pressure already IMO on I3 to be indicted for securities violations, whether that is the case will be up to a court to decide. You have taken steps to stop the regulators from stopping your work, but they can arrest you and accuse you at any time. They know they have a better than 80% chance to get a conviction at trial, just because of the psychology of an authority saying you did something wrong. I can deal with that element of centralization, but just barely.
I think that any trustee that reveals their identity and lives in a country with strong financial regulations, such as the US, will go to jail for operating with out a license, selling securities with out a license, conspiracy to commit security fraud, money transmission without a licence, running a money services business without a license, the litany of charges will go on forever in some cases.
This will basically only leave trustees in countries where regulations are lax to operate the trustee scheme. This type of system will ensure that wall street and most of main street will not participate. This is bad for my and others' investment in PTS,AGS, and BTS. I will not participate in such a scheme, I believe the only reason that Bitcoin is any different than any prior is because of the blockchain decentralization invention. You are literally taking the greatest invention of the century and throwing it out the window for centralized control. Make no mistake you are taking a step backward.
If you are serious about this thing you have created, you would spend the time to do it right. Satoshi took years crafting his system, you can't take a few extra months?
How much for your PTS, AGS and BTS? I think BM mentioned that the trustee can operate through tor. If no one wants to be a trustee I volunteer, even though I live in the United States. We don't really know if Satoshi took years crafting his system. Bitcoin was released in 2009 after the 2008 nonsense that happened. Maybe he only took a year to develop Bitcoin which was only possible because the enabling factors were in place, research by other people looking create such a system who perhaps didn't because they were too timid. Fortune favors the bold.
The greats of history sometimes committed treason of the highest order such as the founders of America for the betterment of mankind. The founders of the United States turned against the most power empire at the time, they didn't ask for permission from the British. Same dynamic is at play right now. We don't need to ask for permission to do what we are doing.
Anyways, the IRS has said that it views Bitcoin as property and will be taxed as such. How many people do you think will actually file their Bitcoin earnings? I sure didn't and I'm sure the majority of people won't either. The lack of regulation or licenses sure didn't stop people form accepting and purchasing Bitcoin. I think the same think will happen here with Bitshares.
I can't sell them to you. You would not pass the KYC/AML due diligence requirement, since you just admitted that you are breaking or are trying to break several laws including tax evasion. If I did find out your name, through the KYC/AML process, I would be forced to report you to the IRS or risk being a conspirator as per FINCEN regulations on money laundering. I don't need to end up like poor old Charlie.
You are wrong. It can be fast with more trustee nodes as well. One trustee = trouble. Sorry for being brief driving right now. You need a contingency plan if that one trustee can no longer operateYes contingency plan with fallback signature nodes is required for robustness.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It seems like every week we keep hearing changes from Bytemaster (such as trustees) that seem to be quite fundamental to how the system works. This makes me think that BTS X still has quite a long way to go before its release.
In this particular instance it has accelerated the timeline.
"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles...
if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."